9 ms·
US Used AI to Help Find Middle East Targets for Airstrikes
- justinc8687 3y agohttps://archive.ph/njmN3 https://archive.ph/njmN3
- earthwalker99 3y agoWhat Americans asked for this? I know I didn't, and I'm absolutely sick of paying for it.
- nxm 3y agoDo you think American adversaries are not leveraging this tech?
- earthwalker99 3y agoAnd? Is bombing them more supposed to change that?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoYou're American?
- nick238 3y agoWhat Americans asked for these fancy "digital images"? I think we should go back to the good ol' days of CORONA where REAL images were captured on REAL film, then dropped out of orbit and caught by planes. Then we can hire WAREHOUSES full of analysts and put them to work pouring over every bit of film with those little magnifiers they use and then circle the Bad Guys with a big red pen
- op00to 3y agoI did. I want our enemies to know they cannot hide forever. Yes, America has enemies.
- morkalork 3y agoPretty much the perfect use case for AI. Take a repetative job (visually scanning images) that was probably done by dozens of analysts before, automate it, and have those analysts be 100x more productive checking the results. If I were a militant I'd be investing in circus tents or some other completely out-of-distribution type of camouflage.
- licheness 3y agoBecause common AI attacks like data poisoning and model drift are a thing of the distant past...
- RobRivera 3y agoSee you guus are stupid, theyre gonna be looking for Army guys
- nick238 3y agoThe article seems to seamlessly go from "computer vision" to "AI" which is an extremely loaded term from the last few years. It feels like the tech could be basically: align two photos separated by a day/week/month, do a difference. Repeat that for tens of thousands of square kilometers. I'd call that "computer vision". If I explain that to a layperson, I might accidentally say AI, then they think ChatGPT, ..., Skynet, Terminator.
- kromem 3y agoPart of what I think may be an aspect overlooked in the conflict there. The level of destruction is in part a preview of future warfare engagements without Geneva convention style bans on AI use. Too much rhetoric is treating it as a one-off, when in actuality the technology enabling it means it's more of a first-off. We're about to watch the new generation of WWI style technology influenced warfare without ethical and human rights concerns, and it's going to happen quickly.
- makotech221 3y agoSo when the AI picks a school to be airstriked, hundreds of kids killed, we can all throw our hands up and say "oh it must've been a bug or something in the code" and dust our hands off. The banality of evil, truly. DTA
- rancour 3y agoYup. Best part: we’ll do it without AI and blame AI for it. Hit two birds with one stone, or two schools is more like it.
- op00to 3y agoWhere in the article does it say that there are no humans in the loop?
- makotech221 3y ago[dead]
- ASalazarMX 3y agoI think the parent comment's point is that even without AI warmongers find pretexts to bomb neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals; the AI would just add another via of deniality.
- 6yyyyyy 3y agoIsrael did 200 airstrikes on schools already. What are you doing about it now that you wouldn't be doing if it were AI?
- jhugo 3y agoIt was AI: look up “the gospel” targeting system.
- maxglute 3y ago>last year, in which Centcom experimented with an AI recommendation engine, showed such systems “frequently fell short” of humans in proposing the order of attack or the best weapon to use. I wonder if it's stupid risky to actually train AI on actual weapon behaviours, let alone all of them to optimize coordination. That seems like the crown jewel of leaks to infer actual US capabilities. It's one thing to embed a model with info about adversary targetting, but once you include your own capabilities to engage those targets, which I presume you would have to, then those models also becomes a huge liability.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoI think the critical decision making is whether or not to engage in air strikes. Once the US makes that decision, then I think, the US should use all tools at its disposal including AI, computer vision, big data, etc to ensure that it targets and destroys what it needs to. Excluding technology to make itself less competent is, I think, stupid.
- g129774 3y ago[flagged]
- ein0p 3y agoI wonder what all the various “AI safety experts” think about this issue, and whether their concern for humanity extends much beyond LLMs hallucinating something that could possibly offend a random person. The silence is kind of deafening.
- psunavy03 3y agoDepends on what the target is. I assume you'd be OK with the Ukrainians hypothetically using such a capability to beat back the Russians? Wars are horrible, but they are not necessarily always unjust or something to avoid. The Nazi death camps wouldn't have ended without a war.
- Frost1x 3y agoA lot of AI safety is about the reliability and validity of information and undesired consequences of actions made on that information. Morals and ethics about the type of information and desired action are sort of inconsequential in this view.
- ein0p 3y agoFeels like maybe the whole “AI safety” is about maintaining control over manufacturing consent and promulgating only the approved narrative, and not much else. When it comes to the things the regime wants (surveillance, bombing brown people) these people immediately become blind, deaf, and mute.
- Vecr 3y agoYudkowsky's fine with it as it won't kill everyone. Just some people.
- bastard_op 3y agoFar easier to kill people in Java than other languages.
- ashildr 3y agoSo who put the wedding album into the corpus?